Judgment : 1. Petitioners are A party in M.C. No.52 of 1996 on the file of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Revenue Divisional Officer, Puddukottai, and the proceedings against the petitioners as well as B party were initiated under section 145, Cr.P.C., with an allegation that there is a dispute in respect of a building in T.S.N.No2763 situate at East Main St, near Brindavanam, Puddukottai, and that the said dispute is likely to result in breach of peace. 2. After the proceedings were initiated, summons were issued by the learned Magistrate to both the parties to appear before him on 6. 96. Accordingly, on 6. 96, both the parties appeared and sought time to file written statements. On that date, C’ party also appeared and filed a petition with a prayer to implead them in the proceedings, which was allowed. The case was adjourned to 6. 96 on which date, a written statement of B party was filed. The matter was adjourned to 16. 96 and then to 7. 96. I n between 16. 96 and 7. 96, A party filed a petition in Crl.O.P. No.4219 of 1996 before this Court with a prayer to quash the proceedings in the said M.C. and along with that, also filed Crl.M.P.No.1884 of 1996 seeking stay of the proceedings. This Court, though admitted Crl.O.P.No.4219 of 1996, ordered only notice on the stay petition. It is to be noted that between 16. 1996 and 7. 1996, A party did not file their written statement and hence, the matter was adjourned from 7. 96 to 96. 3. In the meantime, B party also filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.4469 of 1996 with a prayer to direct the learned Magistrate to expedite the proceedings in the above M.C. Crl.O.P. No 4219 of 1996, which was admitted by this Court, was posted for hearing on 27. 96. The fact that Crl.O.P.No.4219 of 1996 filed by A party had been posted for hearing on 27. 96, was intimated to the learned Magistrate by the Advocate by his letter dated 17. 96 and the same was received by the ;learned Magistrate on 27. 96 as could be seen from the endorsement made by him in the said letter. The learned Magistrate passed the present impugned order on 27. 96 holding that B party was in possession of the property and they are entitled for the said possession. 4. 96 and the same was received by the ;learned Magistrate on 27. 96 as could be seen from the endorsement made by him in the said letter. The learned Magistrate passed the present impugned order on 27. 96 holding that B party was in possession of the property and they are entitled for the said possession. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners-A party, contends that the learned Magistrate having adjourned the proceedings from time to time and having been informed that the High Court is ceased of the matter and the same is to be taken up for hearing on 27. 96, ought not to have passed the order on the same day though he was informed by a letter dated 17. 96, which was received by him on 27. 96.I see some force in the contention. The dates extracted above indicate that the learned Magistrate adjourned the matter from time to time waiting for the decision of this Court in Crl.O.P. No.4219 of 1996 and he was also apprised of the fact that the High Court will take up the hearing in Crl.O.P.No.4219 of 1996 on 27. 1996. The learned Magistrate, under the circumstances, in my view, ought not to have taken up the hearing in the said M.C. on 27. 96 and passed the impugned order, when on that very date, the High Court was to hear the said petition filed by A party. 5. The principles of natural justice and fairplay require that the learned Magistrate ought to have adjourned the case to some other date beyond 27. 96 so that he could have allowed A party to argue the petition filed by them before the High Court. The learned Magistrate by passing his order dated 27. 96 has defeated the very prayer sought by A party in Crl.O.P.No.4219 of 1996. In fact, Crl.O.P.No.4219 of 1996 was subsequently dismissed as infructuous since the learned Magistrate has passed an order on 27. 1996, which shows that A party could not present their case for this Court to consider whether the contentions raised in the said Crl.O.P. have any merits. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was hasty in passing the said order and he ought to have waited for the disposal of the said Crl.O.P. filed by A party. 6. On the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 27. I am of the view that the learned Magistrate was hasty in passing the said order and he ought to have waited for the disposal of the said Crl.O.P. filed by A party. 6. On the discussion made above, the impugned order dated 27. 1996 passed by the learned Magistrate is set aside and the matter is remanded back for fresh hearing and the learned Magistrate, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, if any, produced by them, will dispose of the matter. Till the disposal of the matter, the status quo will continue. The revision is disposed of with the above directions.